From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F3ECF2D257 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:11:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 27783 invoked by uid 550); 28 Aug 2024 21:11:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 27748 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2024 21:11:11 -0000 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.ispras.ru AE20D40AC4FC DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ispras.ru; s=default; t=1724879463; bh=AEmvtqlE2Jr9vGKKEhU6/CmSjbwrVnDJOEE+p4AwkS4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=at3XS0K09u+iQrlrPFunhE/KAO+2ZSCeLOVvxBQi3PQiwsXFHp1+xdhDRqhHUkl+X hjPXeEcWphBfHWQHr6mbph9jFSIp6nk792GWLise87liwQJDfXcNHJSzJvyhvsHPR/ jNQ/pSGoLwvGODEKEuDBEG7IiSFu/JhtPsvLvwFI= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:11:03 +0300 (MSK) From: Alexander Monakov To: musl@lists.openwall.com cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= In-Reply-To: <20240828204725.GI10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Message-ID: References: <20240828152826.826990-1-alex@alexrp.com> <20240828201514.GH10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <2f89009e-4290-90d7-d625-09dbf879340a@ispras.ru> <20240828204725.GI10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] configure: prevent compilers from turning a * b + c into fma(a, b, c) On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Rich Felker wrote: > I'm not clear on why the -mno-fused-madd would be needed. It should be > a no-op with -ffp-contract=off unless __builtin_fma were called > explicitly or something, no? I think Glibc was applying it as a workaround for old GCC releases where target backends were doing unrestricted contraction, or -ffp-contract= option did not exist in the first place. Alexander